The LuLac Edition #4,148, October 16th, 2019

WRITE ON WEDNESDAY

Our "Write On

Wednesday" logo

Here’s a great take on how a state can look at basic rights for its citizens.

STATE SHOULD GUARANTEE BASIC RIGHTS

The Supreme Court of the United States heard arguments Tuesday on the remarkable question, here in 2019, of whether employers may freely discriminate against an entire class of Americans because of who they are.
Even more remarkable is that Pennsylvania law does not provide protection from the discrimination at issue, which should be resolved.
The U.S. Civil Rights Act of 1964 bars discrimination in employment, housing and public accommodations based on race and sex. But it does not specifically exclude discrimination based on sexual orientation or identity. In recent years, several federal courts have ruled that the law bars such bias under the broad umbrella of sex-based discrimination.
It was not clear how the court would vote after Tuesday’s argument. But if the court actually gives it blessing to blatant discrimination against an entire class of Americans, Congress easily can correct it by amending the Civil Rights Act to cover sexual orientation and sexual identity. It has included such provisions in a series of laws on more specific subjects that have passed since the 1964 law, including the relatively recent Violence Against Women Act and the Hate Crimes Act.
Meanwhile, Pennsylvania law does not specifically outlaw discrimination in housing, employment and public accommodations based on sexual orientation or identify. At least 40 cities in the state, including Scranton, Philadelphia, Pittsburgh, Allentown and Reading have ordinances outlawing such discrimination.
Bills to correct that have come close to passing several times over the last decade, with broad bipartisan support including from Republican Gov. Tom Corbett and Democratic Gov. Tom Wolf. And in August 2018, the Pennsylvania Human Relations Commission announced that it would accept discrimination complaints from LGBTQ residents under state law barring sex-based discrimination.
But as the federal case demonstrates, the law matters. Lawmakers finally should pass the specific provisions barring discrimination based on sexual orientation or identity.